We Catholics can sometimes indulge ourselves in some triumphalism about our magisterium. We have authority structures, guided by the Holy Spirit. Jesus made promises to us that he did not make to Martin Luther or Henry VIII. Protestants are on their own. “Me and Jesus.” “Every man his own interpreter of Scripture.” And so on.

Now that so many of our Catholic authority structures have become corrupted, we are getting a taste of what our Evangelical brothers and sisters must put up with. Now is not the time for triumphalism. Now is the time for comradeship, cooperation, and collaboration wherever possible.

More:

There can be no doubt: The sexual revolutionaries have infiltrated the churches. They are using the resources of Christianity to promote their views. The revolutionaries occupy the same buildings, wear the same vestments, and use the same labels. But they have invented a new religion, without ever admitting it. The sexual apostates, both Catholic and Protestant, are counting on no one noticing that their newly invented religion bears no relationship to historic Christianity.

Now in a literal war, what does the general order the soldiers to do when the enemy is about to cross the bridge and take over the town? Or, when the enemy is about to take possession of an armaments factory? Blow up the bridge. Blow up the factory. Blow up your own stuff, so the enemy cannot use it against you.

Obviously, we are not going to literally blow up anything. But we have an obligation to figuratively explode ideas. With the Nashville Statement, especially Article X, our Evangelical brothers and sisters have drawn a line in the sand.

Someone had to say it: The sexual revolutionaries have invented a new religion. It is NOT Christianity. I am grateful that our Evangelical brothers and sisters have said it. I support them in saying it. Making this point loudly and clearly is an absolute strategic necessity. Not to mention an obligation of Truth and Justice.

Morse goes on to argue that it is imprudent for Catholics to complain about the Nashville Statement for “not being Catholic enough,” re: contraception and divorce. As a Catholic who has long spoken out publicly against divorce and contraception, she has the credentials to do it. Read the whole thing. It’s important.

Morse no doubt has in mind the increasingly prominent ministry of Father James Martin, SJ, who has a book out that attempts to build a bridge of dialogue between the institutional Roman Catholic Church and LGBT Catholics. There’s nothing wrong with this in principle, but it seems abundantly clear that this “dialogue,” for Father Martin, needs to end with the normalization and affirmation of homosexuality within the Catholic Church. He has been very careful not to deny outright the Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality, but as R.J. Snell points out in this must-read essay, Father Martin, in his book, presents truths so selectively as to amount to presenting falsehood. Excerpt:

It is certainly true that LGBT Catholics ought to be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity, just as LGBT Catholics ought to treat the hierarchy similarly, but leaving it at that is such a partial truth as to turn out false, and Martin does leave it at that, utterly bypassing the central claims at stake, namely, whether homosexual acts are morally permissible or not.

In fact, bypassing the central claims is essential to Martin’s vision of the bridge. Responding to a review of his book in Commonweal by the theologian David Cloutier, Martin notes that Building a Bridge intentionally “never mentions sex, specifically the church’s ban on homosexual activity” since the Church’s “stance on the matter is clear,” as is the LGBT community’s rejection of that teaching. So, Martin continues, “I intentionally decided not to discuss that question, since it was an area on which the two sides are too far apart.”

Despite skirting the point, Martin maintains the importance of encounter, which is “not something to dismiss as out of date, tired or stale. . . . And fundamentally, since the desire for ‘encounter’ is a work motivated by the desire for truth and culminating in the desire for welcome, it must be seen as a work of the Holy Spirit.” Yet genuine encounter, rooted in the desire for truth, could hardly occur in the absence of substantive discussion of the claims made by the Church and those who dissent. Martin’s vision of the bridge turns out to be remarkably facile. It’s a call for civility, but the sort ignoring the substance of the issues and asking both sides to affirm what they believe to be false. I have no doubt the book is well-intentioned, but it is startling in its shallowness.

Fr. Martin avoids all discussion of what the Church teaches regarding sexuality, and of the arguments of those who dissent from that teaching, replacing actual encounter with flaccid and abstract interpretations of respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

Snell says that the late Orthodox rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik has a much deeper and more meaningful take on “confrontation” — in between adherents of different religions, or, in Snell’s usage, between the orthodox and dissenters within a religion. Belief in the authoritative teachings of one’s religion, says Soloveitchik, “is indispensable to the survival of the community—that its system of dogmas, doctrines and values is best fitted for the attainment of the ultimate good.” Here’s Snell:

In other words, one cannot understand a faith community—Jewish or otherwise—if the imperatives and commitments of that community are redacted, bracketed away in favor of thin and generic commitments to civility. Such civility produces a false encounter, an encounter of ghostlike abstractions rather than between the flesh and blood of real persons and their commitments. The same would be true between disputants within a community, such as the orthodox and the dissenters on sexual morality.

Who is closer to Catholic truth: the mediagenic Jesuit, or the Evangelicals who signed the Nashville Statement. That is Jennifer Roback Morse’s point, I take it.

Over the past few days, I re-read, for the first time in six months, The Benedict Option to prepare a study guide that will be printed in the paperback version out next spring. People think an author has all that material near to hand, in his head, but it’s not true. One of the things that struck me this time is how vitally important close collaboration and support is between and among small-o orthodox Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians. We have to be careful not to diminish what our distinct confessions proclaim as true, but there is no reason why we cannot work together to support each other when we can. This fundagelical theologian more or less liked my book, except for the part where I fail to point out that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the spiritual equivalent of “rat poison”. Bless his heart. I much prefer the practical ecumenism of Jennifer Roback Morse, as well as my Evangelical friends who signed the Nashville Statement. In wartime, you cannot be finicky about your alliances.

UPDATE: Reader Josh Bishop comments:

You may be interested in Albert Mohler’s latest episode of The Briefing, in which he addresses James Martin’s book. Here’s an excerpt:

“But here you have James Martin suggesting in this book and in interviews that ‘intrinsically disordered’ should be changed to ‘differently ordered.’ Now what’s the significance? It means overthrowing the entire tradition of the Christian church over 2,000 years in understanding how sexual orientation is to be rightly ordered. If you say that LGBT sexual orientation is merely differently ordered, you have actually not only changed the catechism in this specific case of the Roman Catholic Church, you have changed the Catholic Church’s understanding of the doctrines of creation, of humanity, of sin, of redemption, of the church. It is an entire re-orientation of the Catholic faith.”

Not Christianity, indeed. Mohler, a Southern Baptist and an initial signatory of the Nashville Statement, has put his finger on what so many Christians (Catholic and Protestant) can’t seem to see.

“As a Catholic who has long spoken out publicly against divorce and contraception, she has the credentials to do it.”

Which means she is used to being ignored, a perfect qualification for a signer of the Nashville Statement.

On the other hand, she is at least intelligent enough to realize that to speak against contraception to an Evangelical is to get the door slammed in your face so hard the concussion would knock you off the front porch.

“Invented a new religion” is, I think hyperbole, but it certainly is a major shift in doctrine and dogma. I’m sympathetic to the Nashville Statement, because it affirms that sexual ethics are an important feature of most religions, religions differ in how they handle this, and these differences are protected by the First Amendment, except, of course, that an individual cannot be coerced against their will. (An individual can be excluded from the faith).

The Jesuit said, “So I hope in ten years you will be able to kiss your partner or soon to be your husband. Why not? What’s the terrible thing?”

The terrible thing is obvious… faithful adherence to the doctrines of THIS church means that is not supposed to happen, not in public, not in private, never. It could reasonably be handled on the same level as, do you let an unreformed alcoholic come to church raving drunk in hopes of beginning his cure by faith.

Those who disagree are of course free to form a church which adheres to whatever doctrines they are comfortable with, and God will judge as God sees fit, the government has no jurisdiction to do so. They could call it the Rainbow Reformed Apostolic Church of the Catholic Rite. (Oops, just noticed the pun in that last choice of word. Oh well.)

Sorry, but if an unmarried straight couple’s allowed to kiss during mass, then an unmarried gay couple is as well. Kissing is either sexual i.e. unchaste (by virtue of it being outside marriage), or it’s not. Case closed.

“Who is closer to Catholic truth: the mediagenic Jesuit, or the Evangelicals who signed the Nashville Statement. That is Jennifer Roback Morse’s point, I take it.”

On this particular issue, Father Martin is further from the truth because he is preaching half a Gospel. But this isn’t an unusual occurrence; priests and popes are always straying. Heresy starts inside the Church.

Father Martin is a dangerous man playing a dangerous game. Even assuming he means well, he’s speaking in ways that he must know will be interpreted wrongly. For me to believe otherwise would require me to believe he’s an idiot. Take this:

I have a hard time imagining how even the most traditionalist, homophobic, closed-minded Catholic cannot look at my friend and say, ‘That is a loving act, and that is a form of love that I don’t understand but I have to reverence.

Putting the gratuitous insult aside, the context of what he’s saying here is a former priest who “has been with his partner for 20 years”. His partner is very sick and he’s been taking care of him for years. So he asks “is this not love” and very quickly rattles off several things like, should they be apart, should they never have met, etc. This is a not so subtle slight of hand. Of course it’s loving to take care of a sick person. But the implication he’s attempting is that they must “be together” for that love to exist. If he thinks two men should be together in a homosexual relationship he should have the courage to come out and say it. It’s cowardice masquerading as compassion.

From CS Lewis’ Screwtape Letters:

Keep everything hazy in his mind now, and you will have all eternity wherein to amuse yourself by producing in him the peculiar kind of clarity which Hell affords.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting all gay people are headed to hell…

I don’t think I’ll ever understand how the Jesuits could have come from Saint Ignatius to the sad state they exist in today.

You may be interested in Albert Mohler’s latest episode of The Briefing, in which he addresses James Martin’s book. Here’s an excerpt:

“But here you have James Martin suggesting in this book and in interviews that ‘intrinsically disordered’ should be changed to ‘differently ordered.’ Now what’s the significance? It means overthrowing the entire tradition of the Christian church over 2,000 years in understanding how sexual orientation is to be rightly ordered. If you say that LGBT sexual orientation is merely differently ordered, you have actually not only changed the catechism in this specific case of the Roman Catholic Church, you have changed the Catholic Church’s understanding of the doctrines of creation, of humanity, of sin, of redemption, of the church. It is an entire re-orientation of the Catholic faith.”

Not Christianity, indeed. Mohler, a Southern Baptist and an initial signatory of the Nashville Statement, has put his finger on what so many Christians (Catholic and Protestant) can’t seem to see.

More and more often I hear myself sounding like a cranky old man, which must mean I’m turning into one. I read something like this and think: Damn, y’all just now noticing that? It was obvious in the late ’70s.

This fundagelical theologian more or less liked my book, except for the part where I fail to point out that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the spiritual equivalent of “rat poison”.

Right back at ya Mr. Bauder 🙂

“Whoever leaves her departs from the will and command of Our Lord Jesus Christ; leaving the path of salvation, he enters that of perdition. Whoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress”
Leo XIII – Satis cognitum

i wish more conservative christians, before complaining that trans people just “want to do whatever they want,” (as if the trans experience is no more than a wish for absolute sexual freedom with no basis in their material biology) actually took the time to try to understand gender identity and what that experience is like for non-gender conforming people. (yeah, i can see you rolling your eyes…)

this is the perspective of a queer catholic who adheres to the church’s teaching on sexuality. YET — she bothers to understand the trans experience, in part because she can relate to it.

you’re probably already aware of her. if you are, i wish your blog posts showed you’d actually bothered to understand a perspective like hers. instead you tend to lump gay people and trans people into the same category as the sex-addicted, the adulterous, the promiscuous, the sordid (Those are categories of EXCESS, not gender expression, and by the numbers those categories of excess claim the souls of vastly more heterosexual people than queers)…

Who is closer to Catholic truth: the mediagenic Jesuit, or the Evangelicals who signed the Nashville Statement. That is Jennifer Roback Morse’s point, I take it.

Neither. Her point shows a fundamental misunderstanding – if the purpose of intercourse under Catholic doctrine is procreation (be fruitful and multiply), then accepting contraception undermines the argument against homosexuality. It is like asking which is closer to a hammer, a wrench or a screwdriver? If the hammer is no longer defined by the purpose of driving a nail, what does it matter?

“Far more serious still is the division between the Church of Rome and evangelical Protestantism in all its forms. Yet how great is the common heritage which unites the Roman Catholic Church, with its maintenance of the authority of Holy Scripture and with its acceptance of the great early creeds, to devout Protestants today!

We would not indeed obscure the difference which divides us from Rome. The gulf is indeed profound. But profound as it is, it seems almost trifling compared to the abyss which stands between us and many ministers of our own Church. The Church of Rome may represent a perversion of the Christian religion; but naturalistic liberalism is not Christianity at all.” -J Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 1923

He saw this coming a long time ago. But like most prophets, his message was rejected and his grave has been forced to watch all that he warned come to fruition.

What is the end game of this outreach supposed to be? Presumably it is to lead those of LGBT persuasion to the Christian (Catholic) faith–or, at least, the friendlier parts of it. What remains unclear is what happens next. When, after being encouraged by the church to express their affection with their partner for months or years on end, will the self-same clergy “drop the other shoe” and preach Christian sexual purity, if they do so at all? I think this speaks to the fundamental affliction of the church today.

The mainstream American church, Catholic or Protestant, can be described as bait-and-switch Christianity, hypocrisy at its finest. Let’s act like we don’t really believe this stuff so everyone will think we’re cool with whatever and fill the pews. Then, after acting like we condone or at the very least don’t mind that behavior (divorce, cohabitation, homosexuality, etc.) we’ll eventually get around to dropping the hammer and going for the close: no, we’re not cool with this, but now that you’re so intertwined with the church could you maybe just take apart the sinful life you’ve been building (with our tacit approval) over the past few years? That’d be great.

Sinking ever farther into irrelevance, the church is desperately following whatever trends the zeitgeist dictates. And intersectional social justice is SO hot right now. Society says “jump” (i.e., the five-ish percent of society in the LGBT category are the biggest, most important thing to focus on), and the church asks, “How high?” (i.e., let us throw out, obfuscate or deny whatever we claimed to believe, because God forbid Christianity become unpopular). The church, in hitching itself to the postmodern rage-machine that is today’s social justice agenda, has made itself utterly irrelevant.

Part of why this debate around sexual morality (focused on LGBT, but easily and rightly extended to all kinds) seems so intractable is that it forces one of several hard choices by the church: reject social norms and continue hemorrhaging members, quietly retain traditional teachings but don’t say anything controversial in public (you can always pull the bait-and-switch down the road), or affirm what society wants to hear. What the church doesn’t seem to realize is that its popularity in the USA cannot be saved irrespective of what choice it makes. All three of the above (speak out, keep quiet, affirm) are losing strategies in terms of membership numbers. The only real choice is to go down standing for something, or to slowly fade away into the modern secular agenda. At least a church choosing to openly support the LGBT agenda is taking a stand. But the silent church is the wellspring of hypocrisy and hatred, a factory of practical atheists that espouse teachings they themselves hold in little regard. Dogma is wielded by these churches as a weapon of convenience, not as tools facilitating a deeper connection to reality. Your Sunday is better spent watching Oprah reruns and Emmy speeches than to hear these same messages from the pulpit with a veneer of antiquated dogma attached.

The church cannot escape the simple fact that either what its holy books say is true and actually matters, or that the teachings are mere suggestions and all will be forgiven. Sooner or later every believer’s sin must confront the dogma of the church head on, and the only thing that matters then will be, “What gives way? The sin, or the dogma?”

In wartime you can’t be choosy about your allies – but you might want to wonder why these allies think you’re outside the faith. Is there something to watch out for, a possible downside or at least a dangerous pitfall to avoid, when enforcing dogma.

You will notice that the references to women in the Nashville statement are very carefully considered. Homosexuality may still be anathema (forgive the Catholic term) but the references to women are very much unlike those before the twentieth century. Woman is not “present in the transgression” (St. Augustine) here, nor is she part of the weaker sex that even the Catholic Encyclopedia of a hundred years ago cannot help portraying her.

So not every church opinion is sacrosanct because it is espoused by Sts. Paul or Augustine.

What I don’t understand about people like Fr Martin, and their desire to “build a bridge of dialogue” is what the dialogue is supposed to be for. What is it about? Examples of serious dialogues I know of would include those between Catholics with Anglicans about Communion, or with Lutherans about Justification. There’s a starting point, and a defined subject.

What is the point of mere dialogue for its own sake, as seems to be the case here? And what propositions does he want discussed which are not already clearly endorsed or rejected by the Church?

What is the point of mere dialogue for its own sake, as seems to be the case here?

There are people who profess to be Catholic who think same sex marriage if find, fulfilling, and blessed by God. There are people who profess to adhere to traditional Catholic teaching in all its fullness who consider all homosexual contact to be a violation of God’s purpose for creating humans.

That’s quite far apart, but each should be able to explain themselves in terms that the others could at least understand the basis for the differences, rather than writing off the other party as a bunch of mindless coots.

The result may well be schism rather than unity, but perhaps a fairly civil one.

Fr. Martin’s opinings do sound dangerous to Catholics focused on maintaining the integrity of the doctrine, but like so many who try this “peacemaker” position he sees himself in between the Catholic hierarchy and the LGBT community — and these ARE the only two groups he’s really focusing on, not the people who need doctrinal reinforcement — he’s got a certain tunnel vision. He’s simply not taking onlookers into account. His book on the subject received two imprimateurs — i.e., guarantees from ecclesiastical authorities that it is free from doctrinal error. But what he says off the cuff in interviews can be confusing, especially if the listener is expecting the worst, and the campaign against him that’s started up on rightwing internet sites has put a number of Catholics in that position.

I don’t know what might come of the dialog he wants between Catholic church leaders and the LGBT community, which, as he says, has “failed to receive” Church teaching on homosexual behavior, but I do think it’s worth pursuing. LGBT Catholics or former Catholics make up a large segment of what used to be the Church, and just as most Church evangelization efforts are now focused on former Catholics, ex-Catholics who happen to be homosexual or transgender are a part of that concern. What has to be kept in mind is that these are former Catholics, not Eve Tushnets. Fr. Martin is talking about and to people who’ve “failed to receive” Church teaching, and not only that, but also in many instances, people who’ve been deeply hurt, even traumatized, by members, especially leaders, priests and bishops, of the Church. We have a long way to go.

If Pope Benedict XVI, looking around Europe as it is today, could envision — as he did (I can dig out the reference again, if required) — a future in which some people will be welcomed to associate with the Church in a loose fashion, perhaps attending Mass only on Christmas and Easter, I think I can imagine a time when LGBT members might kiss or embrace their significant others at the Sign (used to be called Kiss) of Peace. The first goal is to simply bring them back. That may not be enough, but to peacemakers, it’s good.

“Examples of serious dialogues I know of would include those between Catholics with Anglicans about Communion, or with Lutherans about Justification. There’s a starting point, and a defined subject.”

The Lutheran-Catholic dialog about Justification ended in a declaration that, after 500 years, we finally realized both sides were saying the same thing all this time, with slightly different emphasis. Never, we learn now, the Lutherans rejected works, nor the Catholics rejected Faith alone. Both sides are right, and we’re always right. I wish we had known we were all in agreement before starting the Thirty Years War.

if dialog can get Catholics and Lutherans to agree that Works!!! and Faith!!! are the same, we can probably get to the point were we will all agree that “Porneia is a sin, but “this” particularly is not, and we never taught it was, porneia”

“Neither. Her point shows a fundamental misunderstanding – if the purpose of intercourse under Catholic doctrine is procreation (be fruitful and multiply), then accepting contraception undermines the argument against homosexuality. It is like asking which is closer to a hammer, a wrench or a screwdriver? If the hammer is no longer defined by the purpose of driving a nail, what does it matter?”

To which the Evangelical will respond using the Alexandrian method by cutting the Gordian Knot and saying, “The Catholic Church is wrong,” for using Sola Scriptura they can say that there is absolutely no scriptural basis for the Catholic position on contraception but there is a definite condemnation of homosexuality.

I’ve been going to Mass for a very long time and have never seen any sort of couple kiss each other outside of a wedding ceremony.
Hugging, yes. But that’s not just between couples.
I understand the good intentions behind the “Sign of Peace” exchanged during Mass, but it does distract. Not to mention enabling germs to flow more freely through the congregation.

Never, we learn now, the Lutherans rejected works, nor the Catholics rejected Faith alone. Both sides are right, and we’re always right. I wish we had known we were all in agreement before starting the Thirty Years War.

But it was really all about power, and the accomplishment of the Reformation was breaking the temporal power of the Bishops of Rome to enforce whatever they thought was the truth in any given year on anyone and everyone. Power, and money. It began, after all, with a search for a theological basis to reject the banal corruption of selling indulgences to accumulate a building fund.

@Siarlys Jenkins: The trouble with your answer is that Fr Martin seems to rule out discussion of those two positions as part of the dialogue he seeks.

@Oakinhouston: The trouble is that the positions argued by many Catholics in the 16th C were themselves at odds with traditional theology. This is obvious if you read Luther’s debate with Erasmus. Neither would have faired well in the 13th C. Aquinas’s positions are much more complicated than the debate was then. But that’s normal; a Lutheran I know has acknowledged that one thing he admires about the Church is the attitude of thinking in centuries.

And of course, the issues fought over involved much more than merely justification. The entire nature of the Church and of authority was under dispute.

@GeorgeLS… that’s not a trouble with my answer. That’s a trouble with Fr. Martin’s dialog. I’m the pro-choice person who can have a pleasant conversation over lunch with a pro-life person any day … as long as they don’t tell me they feel afraid to be at the same table with me. But I hear only pro-choice people have that phobia.

I’ve never seen couples kissing at mass either. The sign of peace isn’t a way to announce who is inside or outside the boundaries of your family or your romantic sphere. It’s a way to signify that we are reconciling with our fellow man before we partake of the eucharist. I feel that kissing, especially kissing done as a challenge to other parishioners’ supposedly bigoted views, takes the focus off of the eucharist and puts it on the self.

Sorry, but if an unmarried straight couple’s allowed to kiss during mass, then an unmarried gay couple is as well. Kissing is either sexual i.e. unchaste (by virtue of it being outside marriage), or it’s not. Case closed.

Since when is one allowed to kiss during mass? The only exception I know is for the spouses at their wedding.